SANDRA FROSTI AND JOANN RENEE SCHNETZER, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN E. SCHAEFER AND SUE A. SCHAEFER, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellants Frosti and Schnetzer challenged a trial court's order granting appellees Schaefer a new trial following a jury verdict in appellants' favor in a negligence case arising from an automobile accident. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial without specifying adequate grounds and without a sufficient factual basis in the record.
The trial court erred in granting a new trial. Although a new trial order need not use specific language about the verdict being against the manifest weight of the evidence, it must give reasons susceptible to appellate review. Here, the trial court failed to specify whether its ruling concerned lack of evidence on negligence or evidence on permanent injury. More fundamentally, the record contained conflicting evidence on both sides of the negligence issue sufficient to support the jury verdict, making the verdict not against the manifest weight of the evidence as a matter of law.
[1] An order granting a new trial must specify the grounds and reasons supporting the ruling to be susceptible of appellate review.
[2] A jury verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when the evidence is clear, obvious, and indisputable.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although an order for new trial need not specifically state that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence or was influenced by matters outside the record, the order must give reasons to support one of these conclusions so that it is susceptible of appellate review.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that new trial orders must provide reviewable reasons for the grant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile accident occurred at a traffic-light-controlled intersection between appellant Schnetzer and appellee John Schaefer. Schaefer claimed he…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellants, Sandra Frosti and Joann Renee Schnetzer, challenge the order granting appellees, John E. Schaefer and Sue A. Schaefer, his wife, a new trial. We agree with appellants that not only did the trial court err in failing to specify the necessary grounds and reasons to support the order, but the court also erred in concluding that the record supported such an order at all. Accordingly, we reverse.
This action arose from an automobile accident between appellant Schnetzer and appel-lee John Schaefer that occurred at a traffic-light-controlled intersection. Schaefer contended that he sustained permanent injuries to his knee due to Schnetzer’s negligent operation of her vehicle.
The evidence was clearly in dispute as to which driver had the green light at the intersection. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Schnetzer finding no negligence on the part of Schnetzer. Schaefer then filed a motion for judgment in accordance with a previous motion for directed verdict, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, 'and/or a motion for new trial.
The trial court granted appellees’ motion for new trial stating that his ruling was due to the “cumulative effect of all the evidence.”
Although an order for new trial need not specifically state that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence or was influenced by matters outside the record, the order must give reasons to support one of these conclusions so that it is susceptible of appellate review. See Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Hawk v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 547 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
In the instant case, the order granting a new trial simply states that Schaefer’s motion for new trial was granted. Even after appellants’ counsel requested that the trial court specify whether his ruling was based on the lack of evidence to support the jury’s verdict on the negligence issue or whether it was based on the evidence in regard to the permanent injury issue, the trial court failed to do so.
For a verdict to be found to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, the evidence must be “clear, obvious and indisputable.” McNair v. Davis, 518 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
Where there is conflicting evidence, the weight to be given that evidence is within the province of the jury. Hawk; Perenic v. Castelli, 353 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1211 (Fla.1978).
After an independent review of the record, we fail to find a sufficient factual basis upon which to sustain the trial court’s order for a new trial. As there was clearly conflicting evidence on both sides of the negligence issue sufficient to support the jury verdict, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion for new trial. We, therefore, reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict.
FRANK and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K-Mart Corp. v. Collins, 707 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…to be found to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, the evidence must be ‘clear, obvious and indisputable.’ Where there is conflicting evidence, the weight to be given that evidence is within the province of the jury.” Frosti v. Schaefer, 675 So. 2d 181, 182-183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (citation omitted). In his order, the trial judge in this case made the following findings in ruling that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence: Pursuant to the evidence adduced at trial, this matte…
-
Miami Elevator Co. v. Langill, 711 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Frosti v. Schaefer, 675 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Burns v. Otis Elevator Co., 550 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Young v. Curgil, 358 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).…
Authorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Perenic v. Castelli, 353 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Hawk v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 547 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Marjane McNAIR v. Donato A. Davis, 518 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)